Appeal No. 1998-0865
Application No. 08/488,455
density, which opposes the reason for combining). Thus, we
find that it would not have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Hubbard and Takeuchi I or II to form a transducer
with a concave curvature.
Nonetheless, assuming arguendo that one were to consider
Hubbard as suggesting a ceramic substrate and a transducer
curved into a recess in the substrate, the combination still
fails to meet each and every element of the claims.
Specifically, as indicated above, claim 2 requires not only
that the transducer be curved, but also that a portion of the
substrate be curved. Nowhere in any of the cited references
do we find a teaching or suggestion to curve a portion of the
substrate. Instead, Hubbard suggests forming a recess in the
substrate on the side carrying the transducer and bending the
transducer into the recess. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2 through
6 and 8 through 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007